That's as may be, but I think we as a society need to rethink what that means. It used to be that the primary risk from being "out in public" came from being unlucky and having someone see you emerging from a porno theater, or happening to observe your car parked outside your mistress's house, or something. Or you had to already be the target of a police investigation for some reason. If you weren't already under investigation or the victim of some bad luck, your movements were pretty well anonymous.

The ability to amass large amounts of data on the movements of ordinary citizens and sift through that data is unprecedented, and drastically reduces if not eliminates the notion of anonymity in public spaces.

Eh. I have no problem with this. I've known a few cops, most of them are bored shiatless half the time and would run random plates they see while driving around (and even get lucky every now in then find out that it's stolen or the owner had warrants out).

geekbikerskum:The ability to amass large amounts of data on the movements of ordinary citizens and sift through that data is unprecedented, and drastically reduces if not eliminates the notion of anonymity in public spaces.

geekbikerskum:In before "But out in public, you have no right to privacy."

That's as may be, but I think we as a society need to rethink what that means. It used to be that the primary risk from being "out in public" came from being unlucky and having someone see you emerging from a porno theater, or happening to observe your car parked outside your mistress's house, or something. Or you had to already be the target of a police investigation for some reason. If you weren't already under investigation or the victim of some bad luck, your movements were pretty well anonymous.

The ability to amass large amounts of data on the movements of ordinary citizens and sift through that data is unprecedented, and drastically reduces if not eliminates the notion of anonymity in public spaces.

geekbikerskum:The ability to amass large amounts of data on the movements of ordinary citizens and sift through that data is unprecedented, and drastically reduces if not eliminates the notion of anonymity in public spaces.

License plate readers don't actually track any specific person's movements. They simply record the location of all vehicles at specific times, something anyone standing on a street corner could do. If there is a violation of privacy, and there is an argument whether someone has a right to privacy while on a public street, it comes when the data is retrieved. If the police use that data to track you while you are doing something perfectly legal, that would be a violation. If they use it to identify the location of violators, then it's legally and ethically acceptable.

Given the massive amounts of data these things record, it's impossible for the cops to track a random person's movements unless they specifically sought to track their movements.

If it offends a person because they had their license plate tracked in public, then the only way to avoid that is to stay home. You can't expect privacy in a public place.

So far the only use I've seen for license plate readers has been good. Example: A woman complained to the police that her ex-husband violated a protection order by continuously driving past her house. He denied being anywhere near her house at the time of the alleged violations. However, an LPR showed him passing through a nearby intersection at the time of the violation and when he claimed to be at home across town. He was charged and convicted based on that evidence.

I can give other examples too, all of which are legitimate uses of the LPR.

geekbikerskum:In before "But out in public, you have no right to privacy."

That's as may be, but I think we as a society need to rethink what that means. It used to be that the primary risk from being "out in public" came from being unlucky and having someone see you emerging from a porno theater, or happening to observe your car parked outside your mistress's house, or something. Or you had to already be the target of a police investigation for some reason. If you weren't already under investigation or the victim of some bad luck, your movements were pretty well anonymous.

The ability to amass large amounts of data on the movements of ordinary citizens and sift through that data is unprecedented, and drastically reduces if not eliminates the notion of anonymity in public spaces.

"Reasonable expectation of privacy" would work just fine if dumbarse judges would actually think about what's reasonable. No one expects to not be occasionally photographed while out and about. But NO ONE would think someone tracking your every movement is reasonable. Just because you can occasionally be photographed in public doesn't make ALL photographing in public reasonable. It's incredibly stupid how one has been applied to the other. You can prove it experimentally pretty easily. Go to a mall, pick out a random person and follow them around pointing a camera at them. I guaranteeyou that they will call the police at some point. No one thinks that's reasonable.

CruiserTwelve:So far the only use I've seen for license plate readers has been good.

Which TFA says is 0.0005 percent of the usage.

it's impossible for the cops to track a random person's movements unless they specifically sought to track their movements.

Hardly. The system tracks plates, times and locations and records them in a database. See a hot chick drive down the street? Just type in the plate and you can find a driving pattern. She usually drives to Five Guys for lunch on Wednesdays, etc. Perfect way to set up a "pat down for weapons."

Since there's no oversight and no accountability, there's nothing to keep that from happening.

I have no problem with them reading the plates and seeing if they are flagged for some reason - same thing cops on the street do every day. I DO have a problem with them keeping all the data on all the plates they read for extended periods of time, especially if they refuse to reveal anything about what they do (or want to do) with that saved data. No legitimate reason for the government to keep it for more than a few days.

Taxcheat:Hardly. The system tracks plates, times and locations and records them in a database. See a hot chick drive down the street? Just type in the plate and you can find a driving pattern. She usually drives to Five Guys for lunch on Wednesdays, etc. Perfect way to set up a "pat down for weapons."

Since there's no oversight and no accountability, there's nothing to keep that from happening.

There are laws to prevent that from happening. The same laws that prevent a cop from pulling that same hot chick over and "patting her down for weapons" as you say, without tracking her movements. Why would a cop need to establish a driving pattern to engage in bad behavior?

But the point is that someone COULD do that. The point was to illustrate the futility of claiming privacy on a public street.

b) And if someone did, how long do you think it would take before DHS got involved?

Irrelevant.

The difference is the police are doing it. It's not just "anyone."

Agreed. Government actions are controlled by the constitution, so the argument is whether recording license plates is a violation of the constitution. I think it would be hard to argue that the simple act of recording those plates is a violation. There may be an argument against the use of that information. As I said above, if the information is used improperly that could be a constitutional violation, but the mere gathering of that information in a public place isn't.

But the point is that someone COULD do that. The point was to illustrate the futility of claiming privacy on a public street.

b) And if someone did, how long do you think it would take before DHS got involved?

Irrelevant.

The difference is the police are doing it. It's not just "anyone."

Agreed. Government actions are controlled by the constitution, so the argument is whether recording license plates is a violation of the constitution. I think it would be hard to argue that the simple act of recording those plates is a violation. There may be an argument against the use of that information. As I said above, if the information is used improperly that could be a constitutional violation, but the mere gathering of that information in a public place isn't.

Personally I'd use it to track the movements of my girlfriend, but that's just me.

CruiserTwelve:However, an LPR showed him passing through a nearby intersection at the time of the violation and when he claimed to be at home across town. He was charged and convicted based on that evidence.

CruiserTwelve:License plate readers don't actually track any specific person's movements. They simply record the location of all vehicles at specific times,

So which is it? Does it track people (for all intents), or "just vehicles"? If it's just vehicles, why couldn't this protection order violator just claim he wasn't driving the car?

Taxcheat:How about we put every cop car's movements on a live Google map for everyone to watch? That way, you know, we can tell when an officer is goofing off.

After all, there's no expectation of privacy in public, especially in a vehicle paid for and maintained at public expense.

Three things:

1. How does this relate to license plate readers? They don't put anyone's car on a map for everyone to watch.

2. How would you be able to tell if a cop was goofing off? Because his car was sitting still? Like if he was writing a report, or handling a call, or making an arrest? Mapping a police cars movements wouldn't tell you anything but where he was.

3. Do you really think it's a good idea to let everyone, including those with evil intent, know where the police are at all times?

CruiserTwelve:geekbikerskum: The ability to amass large amounts of data on the movements of ordinary citizens and sift through that data is unprecedented, and drastically reduces if not eliminates the notion of anonymity in public spaces.

License plate readers don't actually track any specific person's movements. They simply record the location of all vehicles at specific times, something anyone standing on a street corner could do. If there is a violation of privacy, and there is an argument whether someone has a right to privacy while on a public street, it comes when the data is retrieved. If the police use that data to track you while you are doing something perfectly legal, that would be a violation. If they use it to identify the location of violators, then it's legally and ethically acceptable.

Given the massive amounts of data these things record, it's impossible for the cops to track a random person's movements unless they specifically sought to track their movements.

If it offends a person because they had their license plate tracked in public, then the only way to avoid that is to stay home. You can't expect privacy in a public place.

So far the only use I've seen for license plate readers has been good. Example: A woman complained to the police that her ex-husband violated a protection order by continuously driving past her house. He denied being anywhere near her house at the time of the alleged violations. However, an LPR showed him passing through a nearby intersection at the time of the violation and when he claimed to be at home across town. He was charged and convicted based on that evidence.

I can give other examples too, all of which are legitimate uses of the LPR.

Dood, you GOTTA start reading some Sherlock Holmes books. You desperately need a clue before you hurt yourself.

CruiserTwelve:They simply record the location of all vehicles at specific times, something anyone standing on a street corner could do.

There are many things that a person acting as an individual may legally perform that is outside the scope of what the government is permitted.

The only way I see these LPRs being constitutional is if, without recording anything, they scan all the plates that pass through, check them against a database of legitimately flagged plates, and trigger an alert if a match is found. Otherwise it is no different than stalking.